WASSENAAR BILAT MEETING WITH CANADA ON MAY 3

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001911

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/23/2015
TAGS: PARM CA PREL ETTC
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR BILAT MEETING WITH CANADA ON MAY 3


Classified By: POL M/C Brian Flora. Reason: E.O. 12958, 1.4 (b) and (d)
.


1. (SBU) Summary: NP/ECNP led an interagency delegation to
Ottawa to hold bilateral consultations with Canada on various
Wassenaar issues. The U.S. and Canada agreed to work
together in an effort to make progress on enhancing controls
over items of terrorist use; individual reporting of items
Very Sensitive List (VSL) items; dual-use denial
consultation; and developing a Best Practices document for
Intangible Transfers of Technology. In addition, both sides
shared their opinion of potential future expansion of the
Arrangement. End Summary


2. (SBU) State, Commerce, and Defense officials met with
Canadian officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade on May 3 to discuss long-standing and
priority issues in the Wassenaar Arrangement. With regard to
terrorism controls, discussion centered on Wassenaar's
procedures for identifying new terrorist-related
items/technologies. These call for the Ad-Hoc Group of
Security and Intelligence Experts to identify such
commodities and forward them, via the General Working Group
(GWG),to the Experts Group (EG) for study and analysis.
Canada opined the process lacks specificity and does not
provide the EG with necessary background and details as to
why the items were referred to the EG. It was noted that
meaningful work is hampered because there is no agreed
definition of "terrorism." Both sides agreed to collaborate
on ways to improve procedures and consider other measures to
promote progress in this area.


3. (SBU) Canada has had a proposal on the table since 2003
that would require Participating States to report individual
transfers of Very Sensitive List (VSL) items, instead of the
current procedure of submitting an aggregate report.
Progress last year was held-up, because some EU countries
said it would not be possible to adopt such a measure if all
the EU countries were not members of Wassenaar. With this
concern mostly addressed (Cyprus has not been invited to
join, because Turkey is blocking its membership.) Canada
thought progress would be able to be made this year and
planned to discuss this issue on the margins of the May 19-20
Wassenaar meeting instead of re-issuing the document.


4. (SBU) Another USG priority is obtaining agreement to add a
dual-use denial consultation mechanism to Wassenaar. The
U.S. does not believe such a mechanism would be an undue
burden to Participating States and would be relevant to a
limited number of items on the dual-use control list. So far
only Russia opposes, though it is possible that France may
voice objections. Canada agreed to talk off-line to both
countries at the upcoming Wassenaar meeting to try to find
out details of the objections.


5. (SBU) Canada supports the U.S. proposed Best Practices for
Intangible Transfers of Technology, but thought other
Participating States would have difficulty with the language
on "in-country transfers." The GOC agreed to work with the
U.S. to see if alternative language could be found that would
facilitate Wassenaar-wide consensus.


6. (SBU) Canada submitted a counter-proposal to the U.S.
proposal on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) at the
April Experts Group meeting. The U.S. thanked Canada for
this proposal and said it is being worked through the system.
Canada's EG official said the intention of their
counter-proposal was to move forward to enable control of
newer types of technology that are not currently controlled.
Canada believes the GNSS control might have to be updated
once GPS are in place, but at least the discussion was moving
toward the technical aspects and away from the political
issues.


7. (SBU) Membership and the Licensing and Enforcement
Officers Meeting (LEOM) were the last two agenda items.
Canada suggested that Wassenaar should consider the MTCR
model, which has created a permanent co-chair. This allows
for continuity and enables the group to have much more
substantive discussions. Both sides agreed there needs to be
better coordination and reporting between the LEOM and GWG.


8. (C) On membership, both sides agreed that Wassenaar needed
to be cautious in its expansion. It makes sense to expand
where practical. South Africa has recently applied. The
U.S. said it has not begun review of South Africa's
application, because we wanted to resolve the issue of the
other applicants first. Canada said it has concerns about
South Africa, particularly how it is dealing with
unscrupulous arms brokers.


9. (U) USDEL has approved/cleared this report.

Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa
RODDY